AMGEN INC: Faces Calif. Pharma Reps Lawsuit for Overtime Wages--------------------------------------------------------------Amgen Inc. faces a purported class action filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by one of its former employees seeking back pay.

The suit, filed by Jill Helgren, alleges violation of federal and state wage and hour laws.

It is filed on behalf of "Covered Employees" who have been, are, or in the future will be employed by any of the defendants in any job whose title is or was referred to by any of the following titles:

and employees who performed substantially the same work as employees with those titles above and who were employed during the statute of limitations period for the particular claim for relief in which the term Covered Employees is used, including time during which the statute of limitation was or may have been tolled or suspended.

The suit charges that the company -- like others in the industry -- unlawfully characterizes pharmaceutical representatives as "exempt" under the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state labor laws in order to deprive them of overtime pay.

Specifically, the suit alleges that, upon information and belief, defendants' managers, with the knowledge and consent of corporate management, systematically violated the law throughout the U.S., in the following respects:

(a) failing to pay employees for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week; and

(b) failing to maintain accurate records of employees' time.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other Covered Employees, prays for relief as follows:

-- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of are unlawful under FLSA;

-- designation of plaintiff as representative of the Covered Employees;

-- an award of damages, according to proof, including liquidated damages, to be paid by defendant;

The suit is "Jill Helgren v. Amgen Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-07182-AHM-RZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge A. Howard Matz, with referral to Judge Ralph Zarefsky.

ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Investors' Fraud Suit Continues in Australia----------------------------------------------------------------Maurice Blackburn Cashman has during the past three months continued to prepare its evidence for trial against Australian slot machine maker Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. The company has made a number of admissions in relation to the Applicant's claim in both its defense and the particulars provided.

The Applicant served an extensive Notice to Admit on Aristocrat with respect to admissions made by Aristocrat in the proceedings against former company director and chief executive Des Randall and with respect to facts surrounding the upfront recognition of revenue and profit on a number of South American transactions.

In 2003, Maurice Blackburn Cashman Lawyers and litigation company IMF Australia filed a class action writ against Aristocrat Leisure alleging that the company's market forecasts were false and misleading and that it failed to disclose all material information in a timely manner.

The lawsuit alleges that the company misled shareholders by not keeping them fully informed before announcing earnings downgrades that wiped $1.5 billion (AU$2 billion) from the company's value in 2003. The lawsuit claims damages of $86.37 million (AU$115 million) for losses when shareholders sold their stock.

The case was transferred to the Federal Court in Sydney. Later, the applicant applied to amend the class definition to delete the requirement that a group member must retain Maurice Blackburn Cashman to be a part of the class.

This application was successful and the class definition was amended so that the case now applies to any person who acquired shares in Aristocrat during the period Sept. 20, 2002 to May 26, 2003 and who suffered loss as a consequence of Aristocratalleged conduct.

The Statement of Claim has been amended to claim losses incurred by shareholders who purchased shares between Feb. 19, 2002 (previously Sept. 20, 2002) and 26 May 2003.

The court has recently ordered the Applicant to send notices regarding the litigation.

ARVINMERITOR INC: Court Mulls Appeal in Pension-Related Suits-------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal by ArvinMeritor, Inc. against a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan preventing it from implementing planned changes to retiree health benefits.

Three separate class actions were filed in the court against ArvinMeritor and other defendants as a result of modifications made by the company to its retiree health benefits.

The company approved amendments to certain retiree medical plans in fiscal years 2002 and 2004. The cumulative effect of these amendments was a reduction in the accumulated postretirement benefit obligation of $293 million, which is being amortized as a reduction of retiree medical expense over the average remaining service period of approximately 12 years.

The lawsuits alleged that the changes breach the terms of various collective bargaining agreements entered into with the United Auto Workers and the United Steel Workers at former facilities that have either been closed or sold. A companion claim restated these allegations, seeking to bring them under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On Dec. 22, 2005, the district court issued an order granting a motion by the UAW for a preliminary injunction.

On Aug. 17, 2006, the district court:

-- denied a motion by ArvinMeritor and the other defendants for summary judgment;

-- granted a motion by the UAW for summary judgment;

-- ordered the defendants to reimburse the plaintiffs for out-of-pocket expenses incurred since the date of the earlier benefit modifications; and

-- granted the UAW's request to make the terms of the preliminary injunction permanent.

The terms of the preliminary injunction had enjoined the company from implementing the changes to retiree health benefits that had been scheduled to become effective on Jan. 1, 2006, and had ordered the company to reinstate and resume paying the full cost of health benefits for the UAW retirees at the levels existing prior to the changes implemented in 2002 and 2004.

The company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses to these actions and has appealed the district court's order with respect to the UAW lawsuits to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The first identified complaint is "Int'l U Utd. Auto, et al. v. Arvinmeritor Inc., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-73872-NGE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. Representing the plaintiffs are:

ASPEN VALLEY: Colo. Lawyer Plans Suit Over Billing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------A Snowmass Village attorney is considering filing a class action against Aspen Valley Hospital in Colorado over the hospital's billing practices, according to reports by The Aspen Times.

Earlier, Kay Honigman-Singer raised the possibility of a class action against the hospital on behalf of customers who believe they have received inaccurate bills or improper dunning notices from collection agencies, after talking to several people with complaints about the hospital's billing practices.

A hospital spokesman pointed out that the problems stem from old bills that a previous administration did not deal with. Aspen Valley Chief Finance Officer Terry Collins said that the hospital's new billing contractor is now handling them, and it is up to patients to respond to all notices within the specified time.

AVH's billing and collection practices have been the subject of numerous recent complaints by patients, as well as articles in local newspapers.

Some patients say they have received notice from a collections agency without ever having received a bill for services from the hospital.

Others said that after they contested questionable bills and received assurances that they had been canceled, they later received additional bills for the same amounts or sometimes more.

The base of all of these complaints, Ms. Honigman-Singer pointed out, is that the hospital is relying on strong-arm tactics to collect old bills, whether the bills are accurate or not.

AVANEX CORP: Awaits Final Approval of N.Y. IPO Suit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of the settlement of the consolidated securities class action against Avanex Corp.

On Aug. 6, 2001, the company, certain of its officers and directors, and various underwriters in its initial public offering were named as defendants in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned, "Beveridge v. Avanex Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-7256."

The consolidated amended complaint in the action generally alleges that various investment bank underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in the company's IPO.

Plaintiffs have brought claims for violation of several provisions of the federal securities laws against those underwriters, and also against the company and certain of its directors and officers, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock between Feb. 3, 2000, and Dec. 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting virtually identical allegations against more than 40 investment banks and 250 other companies.

All of these "IPO allocation" securities class actions currently pending in the Southern District of New York have been assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial proceedings as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

On Oct. 9, 2002, the claims against Avanex's directors and officers were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement. The issuer defendants filed a coordinated motion to dismiss all common pleading issues, which the court granted in part and denied in part in an order dated Feb. 19, 2003.

The court's order did not dismiss the Section 10(b) or Section 11 claims against the company. In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement for the claims against the issuer defendants, including Avanex, was submitted to the court.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness hearing in connection with the motion for final approval of the settlement. The court did not issue a ruling on the motion for final approval at the fairness hearing.

The company reported no development in the case at its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

BEARINGPOINT INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in Va. ----------------------------------------------------------------Bearingpoint Inc. is seeking to dismiss a securities fraud suit pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The suits filed after April 2005 claim that the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by, among other things, making materially misleading statements between Aug. 14, 2003 and April 20, 2005 with respect to the company's financial results in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings and press releases.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court certified a class, appointed class counsel and appointed a class representative. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2006 and the defendants, including the company, subsequently filed a motion to dismiss that complaint, which was fully briefed and heard on May 5, 2006.

The suit is "In Re BearingPoint, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-00454-TSE-TCB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under Judge T. S. Ellis, III with referral to Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan.

CANADIAN OIL COMPANIES: Face Suit Over Alleged Price Fixing-----------------------------------------------------------A Quebec woman is seeking permission in Quebec Superior Court to launch a class action against the province's four major oil companies over an alleged conspiracy to raise the price of gasoline in Quebec, the Canadian Press reports.

The lawsuit alleges that oil companies colluded to raise gas prices, under the pretext of heading off the government's plan to introduce a new surtax to finance the province's new sustainable development program.

Catherine Savoie claims the oil companies raise the price of gas in the province by 1.3 cents per liter in order to offset a planned government tax aimed at financing Quebec's new environmental plan.

In court documents, Ms. Savoie points out that the government has yet to finalize details about the tax, including when it will be implemented and how much oil companies will be charged.

She says the oil companies nevertheless went ahead and raised their prices in unison around Jan. 1, 2007.

Ms. Savoie's motion contends that the oil companies are making $5 million per week from the price hike.

None of her claims has been proven in court.

Oil industry representatives warned the provincial government last year that it would raise gas prices in order to compensate for the government's so-called "green tax."

CAR ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Canadian Dealers' Group to Pay $700T--------------------------------------------------------------The Canadian Automotive Dealers' Association (CADA) agreed to pay $700,000 and stipulated to a five-year injunction prohibiting car manufacturers from engaging in anticompetitive practices alleged in "In Re: New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation."

Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed an antitrust class action against major automakers, alleging that the manufacturers unlawfully conspired to stop export of cheaper Canadian new vehicles into the U.S. for use or resale. It is alleged that the illegal scheme artificially inflated the prices paid by U.S. consumers for each new vehicle purchased since 2001.

The consolidated antitrust class action, "In Re: New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation," named most major carmakers as defendants, along with associations representing U.S. and Canadian dealerships. Those named include:

According to the complaint, manufacturers maintained higher prices on virtually every car sold in the U.S. compared to prices of the same vehicles in Canada, charging 10-30 percent more for their vehicles in the U.S.

For example, Ford's 2002 Windstar LX minivan had a Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price of US$16,448 in Canada and US$22,340 in the U.S. -- a difference of 26 percent. In another example, the MSRP for a 2002 Lexus SC43 was 13 percent lower in Canada than the U.S., US$53,151 compared to US$61,055.

On Feb. 24, 2006, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. agreed to pay $35 million to settle plaintiffs' claims. Toyota also agreed to refrain from engaging in anticompetitive conduct with other automakers and trade associations and to cooperate in the lawsuit's discovery process.

The settlement with Toyota was followed by two important courtroom victories for plaintiffs in the case. On March 10, 2006, Judge Hornby certified a nationwide class for injunctive relief. On May 12, 2006, Judge D. Brock Hornby of the U.S. District of Maine provisionally certified five state classes for damages. Plaintiffs are presently seeking a ruling on up to 18 more state classes.

Moreover, on Sept. 6, 2006, plaintiffs' counsel negotiated a settlement with CADA. Under the agreement, CADA agreed to pay $700,000 and stipulated to a five-year injunction prohibiting them from engaging in anticompetitive practices at issue in the lawsuit. Like Toyota, CADA agreed to cooperate in facets of the discovery process in the litigation against the remaining defendants.

CARMAX INC: Still Faces Dealers' Act Violations Suit in S.C. ------------------------------------------------------------CarMax, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Aiken County, South Carolina, which alleges that the company is violating the state's Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers Act or Dealer's Act.

On Aug. 29, 2006, Heather Herron, and others, filed the putative class action against 51 South Carolina automobile dealers, including CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. The company operates two of its 71 superstores in the state of South Carolina.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants are violating South Carolina's Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers Act by:

-- presenting their respective processing fees in a manner that gives consumers the impression that charging the processing fees is required by law; and

-- excluding their respective processing fees from the advertised prices of their vehicles.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages equal to two times actual damages and punitive damages equal to three times actual damages. The complaint, however, does not specify a dollar amount of damages.

Plaintiffs alternatively seek equitable relief in the form of a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from deceptively charging future consumers such processing fees and the disgorgement of all such processing fees collected since Aug. 29, 2002. They also seek to recover attorneys' fees.

As part of the settlement, class members will be entitled to make a claim for refunds or bill reductions of 35% from their prior hospital bills. For the next four years, Catholic Healthcare West hospitals have also agreed to maintain discounted pricing policies for uninsured patients that will make Catholic Healthcare's pricing for uninsured patients comparable to the pricing for patients with private insurance.

In addition, Catholic Healthcare has agreed to maintain more compassionate collections policies that will protect uninsureds who fall behind in their payments. The settlement benefits have been valued at approximately $423 million.

The initial agreement reached in May 2006 was changed to make available a 35 percent discount or refund on bills of uninsured patients who received treatment at a Catholic Healthcare West hospital from July 1, 2001 through Sept. 25, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006).

Uninsured patients who wish to apply for greater discounts based on economic need can apply for additional financial assistance.

The agreement essentially applies a charity-care policy adopted by Catholic Healthcare in May 2004 to benefit about 700,000 uninsured patients who received care at Catholic Healthcare hospitals after July 1, 2001.

The initial settlement amount was estimated at about $228 million, according to court documents.

Catholic Healthcare, which admitted no wrongdoing, also agreed to maintain the charity-care policy unchanged for four more years.

"This settlement provides much-needed relief to hundreds of thousands of uninsured patients by substantially reducing their past medical bills and ensuring that in the future CHW maintains reasonable prices for all uninsured patients," said Plaintiffs' attorney Kelly M. Dermody, of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, in San Francisco, California.

Co-counsel Sidney A. Backstrom of the Scruggs Law Firm added, "We are pleased that the Court granted final approval to this settlement, which not only secures fair pricing for uninsured patients, but also protects them from unfair and overly aggressive collections practices."

The Settlement

As part of the agreement, class members will be entitled to make a claim for refunds or deductions from their prior hospital bills pursuant to discounted pricing and collections policies benefiting uninsured patients during the class period. In addition, Catholic Healthcare has agreed to maintain its uninsured pricing and collections policies going forward for at least four years, among other things.

The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Adrienne Dancer and Amber T. Howell on behalf of themselves and hundreds of thousands of uninsured patients at Catholic Healthcare hospitals in California, Nevada and Arizona, alleging that Defendant Catholic Healthcare charged uninsured patients excessive and unfair prices for medical treatment and services given at Catholic Healthcare-affiliated hospitals, and engaged in aggressive and unfair collections practices. Defendant denies wrongdoing and liability in the case.

Proposed Class

The proposed class includes all persons who:

-- received hospital services from a Catholic Healthcare West hospital between July 1, 2001 and the date of preliminary settlement approval;

-- were uninsured at the time of treatment; and

-- earned less than $250,000 in gross annual household income in the calendar year in which they received hospital services.

The suit is "Dancer v. Catholic Healthcare West." Counsel for named plaintiffs and class members are Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Sid Backstrom of the Scruggs Law Firm. More information about the settlement can be found at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/chw.htm.

CITIGROUP: N.Y. Court Okays Salomon Analyst AT&T Suit Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the proposed settlement by Citigroup and its affiliates in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst AT&T Litigation, Case No. 02-6801."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased AT&T Corp. common stock between Nov. 29, 1999 and Oct. 25, 2000, inclusive, and/or AT&T Wireless Tracking and/or common stock between May 2, 2000 and June 14, 2002.

On Aug. 17, 2006, the court approved the class action settlement of Citigroup and its affiliates.

CITIGROUP: N.Y. Court Okays Salomon Analyst Level 3 Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the proposed settlement by Citigroup and its affiliates in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst Level 3 Litigation, Case No. 02-6919."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons, entities, beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Jan. 4, 1999 through June 18, 2001, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Level 3 Communications, Inc. common stock by any method, including but not limited to in the second market, in exchange for shares of acquired companies pursuant to a registration statement or through the exercise of options including options acquired pursuant to employee stock plans.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants:

Beginning in August 2002, at least seven putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the defendants alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of purchasers of shares of Level 3 common stock between Jan. 4, 1999 through June 18, 2001.

On March 20, 2003, the court appointed lead plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), and approved lead plaintiffs' selection of Weiss & Lurie and Beatie and Osborn LLP as lead counsel.

Lead plaintiffs brought these claims on behalf of a class of Level 3 shareholders:

-- against Mr. Grubman and Salomon Smith Barney for violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 for material misstatements and omissions with respect to Level 3 research reports, including that such research reports falsely stated Mr. Grubman's true opinions and failed to disclose the conflicts of interest created by Salomon Smith Barney's internal policies, which artificially inflated the price of Level 3 securities; and

-- against Salomon Smith Barney and Citigroup for violations of Section 20(a) as "control persons" of Mr. Grubman related to his materially misleading research reports on Level 3.

Following arms-length negotiations between the parties, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated May 5, 2006.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court approved the class action settlement of Citigroup and its affiliates.

CITIGROUP: N.Y. Court Okays Salomon Analyst Williams Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the proposed settlement by Citigroup and its affiliates in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst Williams Litigation, Case No. 02-8156."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Williams Communications Group stock and bonds between Oct. 27, 1999 and Nov. 1, 2001.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants:

On Oct. 15, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a complaint in this action against the defendants, asserting securities fraud claims against defendants under Sections 10(b) (and Rules 10b 5(a) (c) thereunder) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint asserted claims on behalf of all persons who:

-- purchased shares of Williams Stock during the period from Oct. 27, 1999, through Nov. 1, 2001, both dates inclusive; and

-- purchased Williams Bonds, during the same period.

The complaint alleged that defendants engaged in securities fraud by causing fraudulent Salomon Smith Barney research reports concerning Williams and authored by Mr. Grubman to be issued.

It further alleged that the reports were fraudulent because at least since June 2000, defendants believed that Williams stock truly warranted a "sell" rating even though SSB rated it a "buy."

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court approved the class action settlement of Citigroup and its affiliates.

CITIGROUP: N.Y. Court Okays Salomon Analyst XO Suit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the proposed settlement by Citigroup and its affiliates in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst XO Litigation, Case No. 02-8114."

The case was brought on behalf of all persons, entities, legal beneficiaries or participants in any entities who, from Jan. 18, 2000 through Nov. 1, 2001, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of XO Communications, Inc. common stock by any method, including but not limited to in the second market, in exchange for shares of acquired companies pursuant to a registration statement or through the exercise of options including options acquired pursuant to employee stock plans.

The proposed settlement concerns claims asserted by lead plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against defendants:

The lawsuit was initiated on Oct. 11, 2002, with the filing of a class action complaint by plaintiff Joel Vine against defendants alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act on behalf of himself and a class of purchasers of shares of XO Communications, Inc. common stock from Oct. 11, 1997 through Nov. 1, 2001.

On Oct. 15, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint individually and on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of XO securities during the period from Jan. 18, 2000, through Nov. 2, 2001.

Lead plaintiffs brought the following claims on behalf of the class:

-- against Mr. Grubman and Salomon Smith Barney for violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 for material misstatements and omissions with respect to XO research reports, including that such research reports falsely stated Mr. Grubman's true opinions and failed to disclose the conflicts of interest created by Salomon Smith Barney's internal policies, which artificially inflated the price of XO securities; and

-- against Salomon Smith Barney and Citigroup for violations of Section 20(a) as "control persons" of Mr. Grubman related to his materially misleading research reports on XO.

Following arms-length negotiations between the parties, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated May 5, 2006.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the court approved the class action settlement of Citigroup and its affiliates.

CONCEPT SPORTS: Aussie Firm Settles Securities Suit, IMF Says------------------------------------------------------------- Litigation funder IMF (Australia) Ltd. reports that the litigation funded by shareholders of Concept Sports Ltd. has been settled, according to information posted in the Web site of deListed, a division of BRG Pacific Pty Limited.

Executives of Concept Sports based in Port Melbourne, Australia, previously agreed to indemnify the company against a securities class action (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2006).

According to the earlier report by the Class Action Reporter, the confidential settlement between the company and investors is believed to be about $3 million.

Shareholders of the company field a class action against the Concept Sports in December 2004, accusing the company of misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to profit targets. The company promised that year to deliver $20.6 million in revenue and a $1.5 million pre-tax profit for the six months to June 30. Instead, it posted a $2.2 million loss.

The suit was commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired an interest in shares in Concept Sports between May 25, 2004 and Aug. 18, 2004.

The Statement of Claim alleges various breaches of the Corporations Act such as misleading and deceptive conduct in the prospectus, material omissions from the prospectus and a breach of the continuous disclosure regime of the Australian Stock Exchange.

On July 7, 2006 the proceeding was set down for a four-week trial commencing on Nov. 20, 2006.

The plaintiff leading more than 120 shareholders in the suit is Cadence Capital. The suit was brought by the law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman.

Concept Sports has also brought cross-claims against international law firm Baker & McKenzie, Munro Legal and CGU Insurance.

EVERDRY WATERPROOFING: To Pay $585,000 in Teen Harassment Suit--------------------------------------------------------------A jury in federal district court returned a $585,000 verdict in a major sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against a national residential basement waterproofing company on behalf of a class of 13 young women, mostly teenage girls.

EEOC's lawsuit, filed in 2001 under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, charged:

* Everdry Marketing and Management, Inc.; and * Everdry Management Services, Inc., also known as Everdry Waterproofing and Everdry of Rochester

with sexually harassing the class of female former workers from 1998 onward at the company's Rochester location.

Everdry Marketing and Management Inc., based in Cleveland, Ohio, and its Rochester, N.Y., affiliate are two Everdry companies that are part of one integrated business enterprise.

The harassment allegedly took the form of egregious acts of verbal and physical sexual conduct on the part of the companies' managers and salesmen. EEOC said that Everdry failed to take necessary steps to stop the harassment, despite complaints to local and national management. EEOC also asserted that the work conditions were so intolerable that some of the women were forced to quit (constructively discharged).

After a nearly two-week trial that started Oct. 10, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the EEOC, providing $325,000 to the 13 young women to compensate them for lost wages and the emotional pain and suffering they endured. The jury also assessed punitive damages against Everdry in the amount of $260,000.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Faces Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.--------------------------------------------------------------GlaxoSmithKline PLC faces a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by one of its former employees seeking back pay as far back as four years.

The suit, filed by David Silverman, alleges violation of federal and state wage and hour laws.

It is filed on behalf of "Covered Employees" who have been, are, or in the future will be employed by any of the defendants in any job whose title is or was referred to by any of the following titles:

and employees who performed substantial the same work as employees with those titles above and who were employed during the statute of limitations period for the particular claim for relief in which the term Covered Employees is used, including time during which the statute of limitation was or may have been tolled or suspended.

The suit charges that the company -- like others in the industry -- unlawfully characterizes pharmaceutical representatives as "exempt" under the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state labor laws in order to deprive them of overtime pay.

Specifically, the suit alleges that, upon information and belief, defendants' managers, with the knowledge and consent of corporate management, systematically violated the law throughout California and the U.S., in the following respects:

(a) failing to pay employees overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week;

(b) failing to maintain accurate records of employees' time; (c) failing to pay California class members overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day.

There are questions of law and fact common to the California class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members including:

-- whether defendants employed or jointly employed the California plaintiff and the California class within the meaning of the California law;

-- what proof of hours is sufficient where defendants failed in their duty to maintain time records;

-- what were the policies, practices, programs, procedures, protocols and plans of defendants regarding payment of wages for all hours worked;

-- whether defendants failed and/or refused to pay the California plaintiff and the California class premium pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek or eight hours per workday within the meaning of California law;

-- what are and were the policies, practices, programs of work and labor for which defendants did not pay the California class members at all;

-- at what common rate, or rates subject to common methods of calculation, was and is defendants required to pay the California class members for their work;

-- what are the common conditions of employment and in the workplace, such as record keeping, breaks, and policies and practices regarding labor budgeting, that affect whether the California class was paid at overtime rates for overtime work;

-- whether defendants compensated class members that terminated their employment all wages owed them immediately upon the termination of their employment as required by California law; and

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Covered Employees, pray for relief as follows:

-- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of are unlawful under FLSA;

-- certification of this action as a collective action brought pursuant to the FLSA Section 216(b);

-- designation of plaintiff as representative of the FLSA collective plaintiffs;

-- certification of this action as a class action brought pursuant to FRCP Rule 23;

-- designation of plaintiff as representative of the California class;

-- an injunction against defendants, their officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with it, as provided by law, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, and patterns set forth;

-- an award of damages, and/or restitution according to proof, including liquidated damages, to be paid by defendant;

The suit is "Silverman v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-07272-DSF-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Dale S. Fischer, with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.

HOME WARRANTY: Faces Consumer Suit in Ill. Over Coverage Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------Home Warranty of America, Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported class action filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging that the company systematically denies claims for coverage, The Law Cash.com reports.

Filed by Patricia West, the lawsuit alleges that Home Warranty of America solicits sales of its warranty service knowing that it will systematically deny coverage, often claiming that the defect was from a "pre-existing condition."

HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: $24M Loan Fees Suit Settlement Approved----------------------------------------------------------------Butte-Silver Bow County Court Judicial District in and for the State of Montana gave final approval on Sept. 29, 2006 to class action settlement for both the Real-Estate-Secured class and Non-Real-Estate-Secured class in a suit over loan origination fees against:

On Dec. 8, 2006, benefit checks for the Non-Real-Estate-Secure loans were mailed to all class members. The benefit amount is $38.00 per Non-Real-Estate-Secure loan.

Case Summary

Angelina Costello and other named class representatives filed this case on Dec. 3, 2003. On Feb. 15, 2005, the Court certified the Real-Estate-Secured Class, as to which Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Defendants violated Montana's Consumer Loan Act (CLA) by charging loan origination fees.

As of July 19, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint to include claims on behalf of persons who obtained consumer loans from Defendants that were not secured by real estate, the Non-Real-Estate-Secured Class, with respect to alleged violations of the CLA.

On July 19, 2006, Montana Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County issued an order preliminarily approving the class action settlement for the Real-Estate-Secured Class and the Non-Real-Estate-Secured Class.

The proposed Settlement Stipulation results from vigorous, arm's length negotiations between the parties' experienced counsel in coordination with the assistance of an experienced neutral mediator.

Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations and any wrongdoing whatsoever.

The suit was filed by Angelina Costello and Dolores Gracia et al. against:

The suit, Cause No. DV-03-280, was filed in Montana Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County.

Class Qualifications

The Real-Estate-Secured Class is defined as: All persons who had real-estate-secured loans originated by Beneficial Montana, Inc., d/b/a Beneficial Mortgage Co., or Household Finance Corp. II within the State of Montana during the time frame of Jan. 1, 1997 through Dec. 31, 2002, except:

* any person who previously has released any and all claims against defendants in connection with a real-estate- secured loan originated by defendants within the State of Montana;

* any person who has opted out of this class action; and

* employees of defendants.

The Non-Real-Estate-Secured Class is defined as: All persons to whom any loans not secured by interests in real estate were made by Beneficial Montana, Inc., d/b/a Beneficial Mortgage Co., or Household Finance Corp. II, or any of their affiliates, under a Montana Consumer Loan License, 32-5-101, et seq., Mont. Code Ann., from Jan. 1, 1997 through June 30, 2006.

Settlement Benefits

Real-Estate-Secured Class: Under the proposed settlement, Defendants have paid $23 million into a settlement fund. If the settlement is approved, the settlement fund, and all interest earned on it, will be used to pay the cost of sending this Notice and administering the settlement, as well as any attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and incentive payments to the Plaintiffs that the Court approves. The rest of the $23 million will be distributed to members of the Real-Estate-Secured Class.

The money will be distributed according to a formula that reasonably distributes the money among Class Members and minimizes administrative costs. The formula will be based on the total amount of interest, loan origination fees, loan documentation and annual fees paid on all eligible loans, and payments will be made to Class Members pro rata. Some Class Members will receive more in settlement funds than will others because the distribution is based upon the proportional amount of interest, origination, loan documentation and annual fees paid by a particular Class Member.

Non-Real-Estate-Secured Class: Under the proposed settlement, Defendants will pay more than $1.5 million into a settlement fund. If the settlement is approved, the settlement fund, and all interest earned on it, will be used to pay the cost of sending this Notice and administering the settlement, as well as any attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and incentive payments to the Plaintiffs that the Court approves. The rest of the settlement fund will be distributed to members of the Non-Real-Estate-Secured Class. The money will be allocated among Class Members on a per-loan basis.

Some Class Members will receive more in settlement funds than will others because they had more loans with Defendants during the relevant time period. Also, there will be payments made in the settlement to a separate class whose claims involve loans secured by real estate (the Real-Estate-Secured Class). The payments made to those people may be more substantial.

Key Dates

July 19, 2006 The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

Aug. 15, 2006 Notice mailed to all known class members.

Sept. 15, 2006 Deadline for filing a request to be excluded (opt out) from the class for non-real-estate- secured class only.

Sept. 19, 2006 Deadline for filing a written objection to the settlement and to appear at the hearing.

Sept. 29, 2006 Final Approval Hearing

HUNTSMAN INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Urethane Antitrust Suit------------------------------------------------------------Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated antitrust class action filed against Huntsman International, LLC and several other defendants for alleged conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, oluene di-isocyanate, and polyether polyols industries.

The suits are now consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols Cases" in multidistrict litigation known as "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," by virtue of an initial order transferring and consolidating cases filed Aug. 23, 2004. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

Other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases" are Bayer, BASF, Dow, and Lyondell. Bayer recently announced that it entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, which is subject to approval by the court. Class certification discovery is underway in these consolidated cases, according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit is "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum with referral to Judge David J. Waxse.

HUNTSMAN INT'L: Faces Urethane Antitrust Litigation in Canada-------------------------------------------------------------Huntsman International, LLC along with other firms are named defendants in a putative antitrust class action in Canada, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, oluene di-isocyanate, and polyether polyols industries.

The suits were filed in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada on May 5, 2006 and in Superior Court, Quebec, Canada on May 17, 2006.

INTERVOICE-BRITE: Allowed to Appeal Certification of Stock Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted InterVoice-Brite, Inc.'s petition to appeal the certification by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas of a purported securities fraud class action filed against the company.

Initially, several related class actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Intervoice from Oct. 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000.

Plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into one proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the company as well as certain named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on behalf of the alleged class members.

In the complaint, plaintiffs claim that the company and the named current and former officers and directors issued false and misleading statements during the class period concerning the financial condition of Intervoice, the results of the merger with Brite Voice Systems, Inc. and the alleged future business projections of Intervoice. Plaintiffs have asserted that these alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint because it lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation.

The plaintiffs' appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in part. The Fifth Circuit remanded a limited number of issues for further proceedings in the court.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice stock during the period between Oct. 12, 1999 and June 6, 2000.

On Nov. 14, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the company's petition to appeal the district court's decision to grant Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

Based on the Fifth Circuit's decision to accept the company's appeal, it filed a motion to stay further discovery pending the Fifth Circuit's decision on the merits of the appeal. Plaintiffs filed a brief opposing the motion to stay further discovery, and the company filed a reply brief in support of its motion.

The suit is "Barrie, et al. v. Intervoice Brite Inc., et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-01071," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Ed Kinkeade.

LEAD PAINT LITIGATION: Sherwin-Williams, PPG Settle for $39M------------------------------------------------------------Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a $39 million settlement of a federal class action related to alleged antitrust violations in the U.S. automotive refinish industry from 1993 through 2000, the Pittsburghlive.com reports.

Under the settlement, PPG Industries will pay $23 million and Sherwin-Williams will pay $16 million. The agreement ends a five-year dispute with six auto centers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Illinois.

Approximately 60 cases alleging antitrust violations in the automotive refinish industry were initially filed in various state and federal jurisdictions (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 6, 2006).

The centers sued in 2001 on behalf of consumers who bought auto refinish paint between Jan. 1, 1993, and Dec. 31, 2000.

The suits charged the company and the other defendants with conspiring to fix prices and allocate markets in the automotive refinish industry.

The approximately 55 federal cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Certain of the defendants in the federal automotive refinish case have settled.

DuPont Co. settled the case for $36 million in 2004 along with BASF AG, for $12 million.

The suit is "In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:10-md-01426-RBS," filed and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.

LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Approval of N.Y. IPO Suit Deal--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Lionbridge Technologies, Inc.

On or about July 24, 2001, a purported securities class action captioned "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. et al." (01- CV-6770) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved in the company's initial public offering.

The complaint in this action asserted, among other things, that omissions regarding the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating shares in the company's initial public offering to the underwriters' customers.

In March 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order dismissing without prejudice the claims against the company and its officers and directors (the case remained pending against the underwriter defendants).

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming as defendants not only the underwriter defendants but also the company and certain of its officers and directors.

The amended complaint asserts claims under both the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws relating to, among other allegations, the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating shares in the company's initial public offering and the disclosures contained in the company's registration statement.

The company understands that various plaintiffs have filed approximately 1,000 lawsuits making substantially similar allegations against approximately 300 other publicly-traded companies in connection with the underwriting of their public offerings.

On July 15, 2002, the company, together with the other issuers named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion to dismiss the complaint on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants.

In October 2002, the claims against officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice. In February 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws could proceed against the company and a majority of the other issuer defendants.

In June 2003, the company elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the company and against any other of the issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were named as individual defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims against underwriter defendants, and the litigation as against those defendants is continuing. It does provide that the class members in the class actions brought against the participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come from participating issuers' directors and officers' liability insurance policy proceeds, as opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants themselves.

A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the settlement costs. The company's expects that its insurance proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that it will not otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed settlement.

Consummation of the proposed settlement depends upon obtaining approval by the Court. On Sept. 1, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and directed that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to all class members.

Thereafter, the Court held a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006, at which objections to the proposed settlement were heard. After the fairness hearing, the Court took under advisement whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

The company reported no development in the case at its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.

MARYLAND: City Defendants Dropped from "Jones" Strip Search Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed as defendants Baltimore City Mayor Martin O'Malley, the City Council, and the Baltimore City Police Department from a class action that accuses them of being responsible for alleged illegal detentions and strip searches at the city's Central Booking jail, Examiner.com reports.

Judge Catherine Blake allowed the allegations to proceed against the state of Maryland alone.

Eric Jones, of Harpers Ferry, W.Va., is the lead plaintiff in the class action, which was filed on May 12, 2005, and claims that people arrested and processed at Central Booking are subjected to illegal strip searches and unlawfully lengthy detentions. Mr. Jones himself claims to have been detained for 36 hours and illegally searched.

Though Mr. Jones' attorney, Sean Day, agreed with Judge Blake's decision to let the suit proceed against the warden and state defendants, he did point out that his client still had a good case against the city of Baltimore.

Mr. Day explains that he and his client have a viable cause of action against the city defendants, since they are entrusting people to the custody of Central Booking.

The suit is "Jones et al. v. Murphy et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-01287-CCB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Catherine C. Blake.

The lawsuit alleges that Mothers Work violated California law by, requesting and recording the address of its credit card customers on a credit card transaction form or otherwise; and invasion of privacy. Mothers Work denies that it has done anything wrong, and denies that any class member is entitled to any relief.

The settlement was reached through lengthy arms-length negotiations between the parties and with the assistance of a neutral mediator, the Honorable Justice Edward Wallin (ret.).

The class is composed of all persons who:

-- from Oct. 12, 2004 through Sept. 1, 2006, purchased merchandise from a store, in the state of California, operated by Mothers Work, Inc., doing business as Motherhood Maternity, Motherhood Maternity Outlets, Plus Size Motherhood Maternity, Mimi Maternity, Destination Maternity, Two Hearts Maternity and A Pea in the Pod;

-- used a credit card to make the purchase(s); and

-- whose address is currently maintained in Mothers Work Inc.'s computer database.

Mothers Work has agreed to automatically provide Class Members with a $15 Credit Certificate to be used at a Mother's Work store in California (Credit Certificates) and a 15% Discount Voucher to be used at 1-800-Flowers.com (Discount Voucher).

The Parties agreed that, subject to the Court's final approval, the named Plaintiff, Soledad Martinez shall be entitled to an incentive award of up to $3,000 in recognition of the risk to Plaintiff as the Class representative in commencing the lawsuit in the Action, both financial and otherwise; the amount of time and effort spent by Plaintiff as the Class representative; and for serving the public interest.

The Parties also agreed that, subject to the Court's final approval, Class Counsel shall be entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs of up to $230,000. The payment of attorneys' fees will not affect the benefits provided to the Settlement Class. A fairness hearing was set Dec. 7, 2006.

Plaintiff's law firms who represent Plaintiff and the Class Members, are: (1) Westrup Klick LLP; and (2) The Law Offices of Allan A. Sigel, P.C.

MULTIPLEX GROUP: Directions Hearing in Wembley Suit Set Feb.------------------------------------------------------------The first directions hearing will take place on Feb. 1, 2007 in a class action brought by Maurice Blackburn Cashman against Multiplex Group.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has accepted an Enforceable Undertaking from Multiplex relating to the company's failure to disclose a material change in profit on the Wembley National Stadium project in London.

The Undertaking has secured a AU$32 million compensation fund for those investors affected by a failure of the Multiplex Group to meet its continuous disclosure obligations. The AU$32 million compensation fund will be available to investors who contracted to purchase and held Multiplex shares between Feb. 3, 2005, the date ASIC believes the market should have been informed, and Feb. 24, 2005, the date the announcement was made.

A Multiplex stapled security contracted to be purchased and held during this period is an Eligible Security under the compensation arrangements.

The class action is issued in the Federal Court of Australia on behalf of securityholders who acquired Multiplex securities during the period Aug. 2, 2004 and May 30, 2005 and who had entered into a Funding Agreement as at the date of issue.

Maurice Blackburn estimates the total claim at between AU$100 million and AU$150 million.

MV TRANSPORTATION: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Minn.---------------------------------------------------------------Nine current and former Twin Cities employees of MV Transportation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that for over a year they suffered severe and constant harassment, abuse, and other discriminatory treatment on account of their status as immigrants and Muslims.

The plaintiffs are from the East African countries of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia; seven of the nine plaintiffs are Muslims.

The lawsuit alleges that the employees were subjected to denigration, physical assault, threats, and termination because of their national origin and religion. The employees also claim to have been denied promotions, training and other benefits of employment, and were denied religious accommodations.

Some of the alleged offensive behavior against the workers included:

-- calling immigrant employees "stupid" and "freak shows;" -- telling immigrant employees they "should remember this is America where they are immigrants and have no rights;" -- that they "are paid more than they deserve;" -- not allowing the employees to speak their native languages even when on break; and -- telling the immigrants "we built this country and now immigrants are enjoying it."

In addition, a manager read Bible passages at the Muslim employees, forced them to listen to loud Christian music, confiscated prayer rugs, and addressed male Muslim employees generically as "Mohammed," according to a statement by the law firm Miller-O'Brien.

A manager also told the employees he would "fire the Somalis, one by one" and said he "was going to get rid of all the foreigners."

"It's astounding that a business that touts itself as a minority contractor treats its minority employees with such contempt," said M. William O'Brien of Miller-O'Brien, an attorney representing the plaintiffs.

Other complaints include immigrant employees being physically pushed and shoved, sworn at and called degrading names, and wrongfully denied safety bonuses.

According to their complaint, these immigrants repeatedly took their complaints about the hostile environment to company management but MV did nothing to protect them. Instead, the company engaged in retaliatory action that included termination.

"The animosity demonstrated by MV toward its immigrant employees is anathema to what this country stands for," said Kelly A. Jeanetta, another Miller-O'Brien attorney representing the plaintiffs.

MV Transportation is based in Fairfield, Calif. and is in the business of securing nationwide public contracts to provide passenger transportation. MV claims it is the largest African-American private transportation contracting firm, and it touts itself as a company that embraces diversity.

In Minnesota, MV Transportation provides transit services for the BE-Line in St. Paul under contract with the Metropolitan Council, and school bus transportation in Winona. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are bus drivers.

The suit is "Nabry et al. v. MV Transportation, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-00124-PJS-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, with referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham.

OSI RESTAURANT: Investors File Suit in Fla. Over Planned Sale-------------------------------------------------------------OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. is named defendant in a purported stockholder's class action in the Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida.

On Nov. 7, 2006 a stockholder complaint was filed as a purported class action on behalf of all of the company's public stockholders, against the company, each of its directors, J. Timothy Gannon, Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Catterton Partners.

The suit was filed in relation to a Nov. 5, 2006 definitive agreement wherein the company will be acquired by an investor group comprised of affiliates of Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Catterton Partners and company founders Chris T. Sullivan, Robert D. Basham and J. Timothy Gannon, for $40.00 per share in cash.

The complaint, Case No. 06-CA-010348 Div. B., is filed by Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System against:

The plaintiff claims it is an owner of the company's common stock. The complaint alleges, among other things, that company directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction by failing to maximize stockholder value and by approving a transaction that purportedly benefits the company's management expected to invest in the proposed transaction at the expense of the company's public stockholders.

Among other things, the complaint seeks to enjoin the company, its directors and the other defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger.

Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Catterton Partners are alleged to have aided and abetted the individual defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties.

PHILIP SERVICES: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $79.75M ----------------------------------------------------------A March 19, 2007 hearing is set for the $79.75 million settlement of the consolidated securities fraud suit filed against Philip Services Corp.

In 1998, Philip Services Corp. restated its previously issued financial statements for fiscal years 1995, 1996 and 1997. The revised statements disclosed that 1995 earnings were overstated by approximately $22.5 million, or 690%, and 1996 earnings by $48.3 million. Thus, instead of posting a $28.4 million profit in 1996, as Philip had initially reported, the company recorded losses totaling approximately $20 million.

Thereafter, Philip filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

In the wake of the disclosures in early 1998, more than 20 class actions were commenced in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the District of New Jersey. By Order dated June 2, 1998, these actions were transferred to the Southern District of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging violations of the U.S. Exchange Act and U.S. Securities Act. Plaintiffs asserted their claims on behalf of the following class and sub-classes: a class consisting of all persons who purchased Philip common stock and call options during the period from Feb. 28, 1996 through May 7, 1998 inclusive, and on behalf of Sub-Classes consisting of:

-- all purchasers of Philip common stock issued in the November 1997 Offering pursuant to the November 1997 Registration Statement;

-- all persons whose shares of Allwaste common stock were exchanged for Philip common stock, pursuant to the Allwaste Registration Statement; and

-- all persons whose shares of Serv-Tech common stock were exchanged for Philip common stock, pursuant to the Serv- Tech Registration Statement.

Specifically, plaintiffs charged Philip and certain of its officers and directors with making materially false and misleading statements concerning its publicly reported revenues, earnings, assets and liabilities. Claims are also asserted against Deloitte & Touche in connection with its audits of Philip in 1995, 1996 and 1997 and the U.S. underwriters in connection with the November 1997 Offering.

On Sept. 11, 1998, following transfer of the various class actions to the Southern District of New York, the consolidation of the actions, and the appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, plaintiffs filed their Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint. In October and November of 1998, each of the defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on various grounds, including forum non conveniens, arguing in favor of litigation in Canada. Plaintiffs opposed defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

In May of 1999, the District Court dismissed the Complaint, finding that plaintiffs' choice of the U.S. as the forum for their claims was entitled to little deference, that Canada was an adequate alternative forum for all of plaintiffs' claims against all defendants, and that the balance of the relevant private and public interest factors favored Canada.

On Nov. 12, 1999, plaintiffs filed their brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing this action in favor of litigation in Canada. A hearing was held before the Second Circuit on March 13, 2000.

On Nov. 8, 2002, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court's decision, finding that the lower court abused its discretion in dismissing the case in favor of litigation in Canada. The defendants requested that the full appeals court rehear the case. The panel that issued the Nov. 8, 2002 opinion agreed to rehear the appeal and, on April 1, 2002, issued a second opinion again reversing and remanding the District Court's decision.

The court issued an order denying defendants' motions to dismiss on May 24, 2004. Among these defendants were Deloitte & Touche and defendants Haynes and Knauss. Thereafter, beginning on June 25, 2004, Defendants filed their answers to the Amended Complaint. Initial expert reports were exchanged on Feb. 15, 2006. Rebuttal expert reports were exchanged May 26, 2006 and expert discovery was completed Oct. 20, 2006.

As co-lead counsel in the Philip Services securities case, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo reached a $79.75 million settlement. The auditors, Deloitte & Touche, the officers and directors and the underwriter defendants have settled for $50.5 million, $18.25 million and $11 million respectively.

On Nov. 28, 2006, Judge Hellerstein granted preliminary approval of all settlements and scheduled the final approval hearing for March 19, 2007 at 10 a.m.

PUERTO RICO: Subscribers Denied Appeal on Lawsuit's Dismissal-------------------------------------------------------------A Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs appeal of the dismissal by the court of First Instance of Puerto Rico of a class against Puerto Rico Telephone Co., Inc., a fixed-line subsidiary of Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

On Nov. 17, 2003, six residential subscribers and eight business service subscribers filed a class action with the court of First Instance of Puerto Rico under the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Puerto Rico Class Action Act of 1971.

Plaintiffs claimed that the company's charges for touchtone service are not based on cost, and therefore violate the Act. Thus, they requested that the court to:

-- issue an order certifying the case as a class action;

-- designate the plaintiffs as representative of the class;

-- find that the charges are illegal; and

-- order the company to reimburse every subscriber for excess payments made since September 1996.

On Nov. 1, 2004 Puerto Rico Telephone filed a motion for summary judgment requesting the dismissal of plaintiff's claim due to plaintiff's failure to follow the procedure to object to charges, established by Law 33.

Law 33 establishes that a telecommunication services user has 20 days from the receipt of the telecommunications service company invoice to object to charges in the invoice.

In the motion, Puerto Rico Telephone has argued that since plaintiffs admittedly failed to comply with said procedure their claims are time-barred. The motion is still under the consideration by the court.

On May 10, 2005 the court issued an order certifying the case as a class action. Puerto Rico Telephone sought reconsideration of that decision and a hearing was held on June 20, 2005 to discuss the merits of Puerto Rico Telephone's position.

On June 22, 2005 the court issued an order confirming its previous decision. As a consequence, a certiorari writ was filed on June 22, 2005.

On Jan. 11, 2006, Puerto Rico Telephone filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the enactment of Law No. 138 of Nov. 4, 2005. This new law grants the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board (TRB) exclusive primary jurisdiction to entertain class actions related to telecommunication services.

The hearing scheduled for Jan. 24, 2006 was rescheduled for May 16, 2006 in response to plaintiff's request for time to oppose Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to dismiss.

The court granted the plaintiffs until March 24, 2006 to submit their motions opposing Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to dismiss. In addition the court granted Puerto Rico Telephone until April 24, 2006 to submit its reply.

On March 24, 2006 plaintiffs filed a request for 60 additional days to submit their opposing motion. On March 29, 2006 Puerto Rico Telephone opposed this request and asked the court to rule on the jurisdictional matter brought by the company.

On April 3, 2006, the court denied plaintiff's request for extension of time, but did not rule on Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to dismiss. On April 12, 2006, plaintiff's filed for reconsideration, which was not considered by the court.

Consequently, on April 28, 2006, plaintiff's filed an opposition to Puerto Rico Telephone's motion to dismiss arguing that Law 138 is unconstitutional. Puerto Rico Telephone filed an urgent motion, arguing that the opposition was untimely filed, and as a result the court has lost jurisdiction of said motion under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

In the alternative, and due to the fact that this is an interlocutory proceeding, Puerto Rico Telephone requested additional time to file a reply and a new date for the argumentative hearing. On May 9, 2006, plaintiffs filed opposition to Puerto Rico Telephone's request.

On May 9, 2006, the judge issued a final judgment dismissing the proceeding. The judge acknowledged that with the enactment of Law 138, the TRB has primary jurisdiction to hear the case. On June 8, 2006 the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals.

On July 10, 2006, Puerto Rico Telephone filed its corresponding opposition to the appeal. Plaintiffs filed a request for oral hearing.

On Oct. 12, 2006, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request for oral hearing and acknowledged the brief filed by Puerto Rico Telephone. The case has been submitted and pending for a final determination.

RITZ-CARLTON: Mass. Banquet Workers Sue Over Unremitted Tips------------------------------------------------------------A group of Ritz-Carlton banquet servers lodged a class action in Suffolk Superior Court accusing the hotel company of breaking state wage law by failing to pay them the full 21 percent service fee charged to all parties, the Boston Globe reports.

Banquet workers contend that customers often think the charge is a tip for servers, when in fact nearly a third of it is kept by the hotel.

Banquet servers at the Ritz receive only 14.5 percent of the mandatory fee, which for years has been added to the food and beverage bills for weddings, parties, and other functions held at the Arlington Street hotel. The remaining 6.5 percent is used by the hotel to offset other expenses.

As a result, banquet staff is routinely tipped less than many patrons are aware -- and less than some patrons intend them to be, the servers say.

The servers argue that the full fee should be distributed to them.

According to plaintiff attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston, eight plaintiffs are named in the complaint, including one who has worked for the Ritz since 1979 and five who have worked there since 1981.

The servers receive a base pay of about $8 an hour, and the 21 percent fee has been in effect for as long as they have been Ritz employees.

This action is the most recent in a series of so-called tip cases by service workers who allege that their employers are depriving them of compensation by withholding tips, which are sometimes distributed to other staff members, including managers, according to the report.

Massachusetts tip law requires that all proceeds from tips, gratuities, and service charges that are added to bills must be distributed to wait staff. The law prohibits restaurant owners from distributing the money to other employees, including managers, even if they also serve food and beverages.

The suit alleges that the dental care provider failed to pay overtime wages and forced employees to work during lunch and breaks without compensation.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of lead plaintiff, Tami Ware, 43, who worked as a full time dental hygienist at SmileCare, 520 N. El Dorado St. in Stockton California.

Ms. Ware was hired to work from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. and was allegedly paid for only 8 hours even though she regularly worked over 8 hours per day. She routinely had patients scheduled for complicated dental procedures at 5 p.m. She said her patient caseload was so heavy that she was forced to work through lunch and breaks.

"I was totally overworked. I sometimes had three root planings at the same time. No hygienist can do that job and do it right," Ms. Ware says. "You cannot tell patients that you are cleaning their teeth and then leave calculus behind because you have run out of time." Calculus is related to diabetes and heart attacks.

"I wanted to do the right thing for patients. By overworking the staff, the quality of the care was compromised. I refused to do that," she added.

SmileCare told Ms. Ware that the company did not pay for overtime. No breaks were built into the work schedule.

"These are the people who take care of our health,'' says plaintiff attorney Shawn Khorrami. "We should take care of them and compensate them properly."

The California Labor Code requires overtime work paid at the rate of one and one-half times the employees' regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of eight hours. IWC Wage Orders and California Code of Regulations require California businesses to provide ten-minute rest periods every four hours of the work shift. The IWC Wage Orders require a thirty-minute lunch break every five hours.

SPX CORP: April Hearing Set for N.C. Investor Suits Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court in Charlotte, North Carolina will hold on April 10, 2007 a fairness hearing to settle shareholder lawsuits filed against SPX Corp.

In November 2006, SPX reached an agreement to settle class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2006).

Under the settlement, the company would pay $10 million to settle what began as seven class-action lawsuits. The settlement covers shareholders who bought stock from Nov. 5, 2003, to Feb. 26, 2004. SPX also agreed to pay $3.6 million for a lawsuit on behalf of employees in a retirement and stock ownership plan, according to documents filed last month in U.S. District Court in Charlotte.

Attorneys plan to ask for fees of up to 28 percent, or $2.8 million, plus expenses in the larger SPX case, according to court documents.

The company said its net settlement payment after reimbursement by insurer will be $5.1 million.

SPX admits no wrongdoing in the proposed settlements.

The suit is "Belafey, et al. v. SPX Corp., et al., Case No. 3:04cv99," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina under Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. with referral to Judge Carl Horn, III.

TRANS BAY: Settles Slavery, Human Trafficking Lawsuit for $1M-------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a major litigation settlement with Trans Bay Steel, Inc. for an estimated $1 million in total monetary relief and compensation for 48 welders of Thai descent.

EEOC charged that the class of Thai nationals, contracted under H2B visas by Trans Bay and a third party agency, were held against their will, had their passports confiscated, had their movements restricted, and were forced to work without pay. Additionally, some workers were allegedly confined to cramped apartments without any electricity, water, or gas.

At least 17 of the workers were allegedly told that if they tried to leave the location where they were being forcibly held, the police and immigration officials would be called to arrest them. EEOC also contends that all the workers were made to pay exorbitant "fees" to the recruiting company which kept them in involuntary servitude. Ultimately, some of the workers escaped.

Trans Bay received a large sub-contract to provide services to retrofit the Bay Bridge and became the sponsoring employer for the workers. Trans Bay contracted with Kota Manpower Co., and Hi Cap Enterprises, Inc., to bring the skilled welders from Thailand to meet the needs of the project. While Kota and Hi-Cap brought over approximately 48 welders from Thailand, only nine of them went to work for Trans Bay. The remaining welders were brought to Los Angeles and Long Beach worked at Thai Restaurants owned by Kota Manpower and Hi-Cap.

EEOC conducted a comprehensive investigation of the charges and, after extensive negotiations, entered into a three-year consent decree with Trans Bay to resolve the case for an estimated $1 million in total monetary relief and compensation. Under the decree, Trans Bay will:

* provide monetary relief for each of the claimants;

* guarantee work on the Bay Bridge Project;

* provide housing for the claimants who agree to work for Trans Bay, including a housing stipend;

* pay for tuition and books at a local college for training as a welder;

* provide sponsorship, if required, to continue to work in the U.S. and certify claimant welders;

* guarantee minimum pay and a base pay once the claimants complete the training period;

* pay the claimants relocation costs, including reimbursement for travel;

* reimburse the claimants for moving expenses to relocate to Napa, Calif.

EEOC filed the lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California after first attempting to resolve the matter out of court. Other injunctive measures contained in the consent decree include:

UNITED HEALTHCARE: N.Y. Court Allows RICO, Antitrust Complaints---------------------------------------------------------------Judge Lawrence M. McKenna of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently ruled that claims may proceed against defendant United Healthcare Corp. and a number of its subsidiaries for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and federal and state antitrust laws.

The case has been brought to recover benefits for a proposed nationwide class of patients and doctors who have been under-reimbursed by United Healthcare for medical services received from providers who are not within its network (referred to as "out-of-network" or "non-participating" providers).

The named plaintiffs include not only individual members of the proposed classes, but also:

-- the American Medical Association, -- the Medical Society of the State of New York and -- the Missouri State Medical Association.

In addition, several New York State unions have intervened in the action to represent their members in the Empire Plan, which insures approximately one million New York State employees, including the New York State United Teachers, the Civil Service Employees Association, the Organization of New York State Management/Confidential Employees, and the New York State Police Investigators Association.

The central claim in the case is that United Healthcare uses certain databases promulgated by its subsidiary, Ingenix, Inc., to limit reimbursements for out-of-network services to a percentage of the "usual, customary and reasonable" fees (UCR).

Plaintiffs contend that these databases are inherently flawed and manipulated by United Healthcare to report fees well below actual UCR rates, which United Healthcare then relies upon to underpay patients and their out-of-network providers.

In 2002, four state workers joined a class action filed in federal court against United Healthcare, in spring 2000, by the American Medical Association, claiming that United Healthcare failed to adequately reimburse members and their families for millions of dollars in insured medical expenses (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 25, 2002).

The unions accused United Healthcare of cheating more than a million people covered under the Empire Plan, an insurance plan for state workers, who use out-of-network providers.

According to its state contract, the company is supposed to reimburse patients 80 percent of "reasonable and customary charges" paid out-of-pocket.

Instead, the lawsuit claims, United Healthcare has used its own formula since 1998, to calculate what it determines as reasonable, resulting in payments far below 80 percent.

The participating unions are:

-- the New York State United Teachers union, -- the Civil Service Employees Association, -- New York State Police Investigators Association, and -- Organization of Managerial and Confidential Employees

According to D. Brian Hufford of the Pomerantz firm, "This decision is extremely important, as it will allow us to challenge practices that have previously escaped close oversight. We believe that United Healthcare has made hundreds of millions of dollars in improper profits that should have been paid to its beneficiaries for out-of-network services."

The suit is "The A.M.A., et al. v. Metropolitan Life, et al., Case No. 1:00-cv-02800-LMM-GWG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lawrence M. McKenna, with referral to Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.

WAL-MART STORES: NCLC Opposes Class Certification in "Sepulveda"----------------------------------------------------------------The National Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC) has filed an amicus brief supporting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in a class action that is on appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, The Fibre2fashion.com reports.

In its amicus brief, NCLC stated that individual claims for overtime pay are not appropriate for class action certification under federal civil procedure rules.

NCLC, a public policy law firm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, filed the brief with regards to the case, "Daniel Sepulveda, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01003-DSF-E."

The case was denied class-action status by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, a decision that was subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

At issue is whether 2,750 Wal-Mart assistant managers in California can invoke class action status in their claim that the company intentionally exempted them from overtime pay and other benefits non-exempt employees receive under California law.

Robin Conrad, NCLC senior vice president, pointed out that efforts to convert overtime claims into sprawling class actions seeking hundreds of millions of dollars are inappropriate, because of the highly individualized nature of these claims.

He argued in the amicus brief that the district court properly recognized the need to examine the work performed by each member of the class and appropriately ruled against granting class action status.

Thus, NCLC is urging the Ninth Circuit to uphold the lower court's ruling denying class action certification on the grounds that each claim is too individualized, and that the class would not be properly served because over half of the potential class members no longer work for the company.

Specifically, Mr. Conrad contends that class certification could only be granted where there is a uniform claim of wrongdoing and that is not the case with "Sepulveda," because of the alleged overtime violations. He adds that it is also inappropriate, since 1,500 of those employees who filed the claim no longer work for the company.

The case is "Daniel Sepulveda, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01003-DSF-E," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

WASHINGTON: Trial Starts in WTO Protesters' Suit Against Seattle----------------------------------------------------------------Opening arguments were made recently in a federal class action against the city of Seattle, Washington over the arrests of about 200 protesters during a 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in the city.

The case centers on an emergency ordinance that took effect on Dec. 1, 1999 imposing downtown off-limits to ensure public safety amidst protests while the conference is ongoing.

Previously, Judge Barbara Rothstein, who presided over the case back then, threw out protesters claims, saying the city had imposed a proper "time, place or manner" restriction to ensure public safety. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth upheld the ordinance, it pointed out, however, that the city might have gone too far in targeting only anti-WTO protesters within the restricted zone, raising questions about discrimination (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2005).

In his opening statement, plaintiffs' attorney Michael Withey told jurors that his clients were arrested merely for speaking out against WTO.

The matter to be decided now is whether police singled out people because of their views and illegally arrested them as part of a city policy to go after protesters.

Case Background

On Oct. 2, 2000, the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice filed the original suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The class action was brought on behalf of anyone detained during mass arrests at Westlake Park between 6 a.m. and noon on Dec. 1, 1999. Eight people arrested that day are serving as lead plaintiffs in the case.

Plaintiffs contend that the city violated their First Amendment right to free speech by arresting them because they were espousing anti-WTO sentiments. They also say the city violated their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Specifically, plaintiffs' lawyers alleged that the city engaged in a policy of suppressing First Amendment rights by arresting protesters without being ordered to disperse and jailing them using an incorrect arrest record.

The complaint, thus seeks damages from the city, Mayor Schell, and former Police Chief Norman Stamper on behalf of more than 600 protesters and others arrested and imprisoned on Dec. 1 and 2, 1999, pursuant to the city's "no-protest zone" policy.

The suit is "Hankin et al. v. Seattle City of, et al., Case No. 2:00-cv-01672-MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canada to Study Citizens' Zonolite Risks -------------------------------------------------------------The Canadian federal government, which faces several Zonolite-related asbestos lawsuits nationwide, will be holding a survey on how 2,600 Canadians use their attics to help determine their potential exposure to asbestos insulation, Lethbridge Herald reports.

The research will be used as part of several ongoing suits against the government involving Zonolite insulation, including class actions filed in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan against Ottawa and former makers and marketers of Zonolite.

The vermiculite-based product was used in housing on military bases and on First Nations reserves, and in other home construction in Canada between 1950 and the early 1980s.

The government is looking for a polling company to survey the 2,600 Canadians, including 200 people who had lived on the Tsuu T'ina First Nations reserve in Calgary, Alberta.

The Department of Justice said the research is needed because little is known about how Canadians are exposed to the insulation in their homes.

Zonolite was made from Libby, Mont.-mined vermiculite, where it was tainted with naturally occurring asbestos.

The government's survey aims to paint a clearer picture of "household composition, household characteristics, and activities in the home."

In December 2006, Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice announced CDN2.2 million in transitional housing funding for the Tsuu T'ina First Nation. In October 2006, about 500 residents were evacuated amid concerns about their homes, which were insulated with a product containing chrysotile asbestos.

The Defense Department has spent CDN2 million to test military homes and buildings for Zonolite.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Court Pursues Insurers to Pay Families ----------------------------------------------------------------A U.K. High Court lawsuit is being launched against insurance companies, in which the case could force insurance firms to pay compensation to families of thousands of asbestos diseases victims, Yorkshire Post Today reports.

Corries, a Navigation Way, York-based law firm, has tackled the case of 69-year-old widow, Sylvia Gilligan whose husband, Anthony, died in 2003 at the age of 71 from mesothelioma.

Mr. Gilligan, a joiner, was allegedly exposed to asbestos while working for the now-defunct Holland Hannen & Cubitt (Midlands) Ltd. on the building of Hanley Telephone Exchange between 1972 and 1974.

The High Court challenge will be filed against insurance companies Excess and Zurich, which provided cover for Holland Hannen & Cubitt in the 1970s, when Mr. Gilligan worked for them, and 10 years ago, when his tumor was alleged to have developed.

Excess, which provided employers liability insurance to Holland Hannen & Cubitt in the 1970s when Mr. Gillgan worked for them said that their policy referred to illness or injury "sustained" during the lifetime of the policy and that they are not responsible for the tumor that developed years later.

Zurich, which provided cover in the 1990s, claimed that its policy covers injury or illness caused by a negligent act during the lifetime of the policy and not 10 or 20 years earlier when Mr. Gilligan was exposed to the asbestos.

Mrs. Gilligan's case will go before a judge at the Civil Justice Court at Birmingham High Court. If the defense is thrown out, it will open the way for Mrs. Gilligan to seek compensation.

Dominic Collingwood, a solicitor with Corries, is overseeing the case.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Israel Govt. Approves $1.2M Aid for Cleanup ----------------------------------------------------------------Israel's Ministry of Environmental Protection has approved nearly US$1.2 million (ILS5 million) in financial aid for the treatment of friable asbestos waste in the Western Galilee and for the removal of asbestos cement roofs from public buildings throughout Israel, according to a Ministry report.

This financial support came in the wake of a call for proposals to local authorities issued in 2006.

The Ministry has approved the proposals of the Western Galilee Association of Towns for the Environment and the Municipality of Nahariya to locate and remove friable asbestos industrial waste from public areas throughout the Western Galilee.

Surveys have shown that asbestos waste, which accumulated in the Eitanit asbestos cement plant, was discarded throughout the Galilee, especially the Western Galilee. The asbestos was also sold to contractors and private individuals for use in roads, yards and infrastructure for cowsheds and chicken coups.

Eitanit, located on Nahariya's coast in the north of Israel, was founded in 1952 and closed down in 1997.

Moreover, the Ministry has approved the requests of 27 local authorities to remove asbestos cement roofs from 114 public buildings throughout Israel, spanning an area of 40,857 square meters.

Tamar Bar On, head of the Asbestos Division, has stated that the Ministry intends to increase the budget dedicated to asbestos treatment to ILS8 million in 2007.

Ms. Bar On added that she expects more local authorities to submit proposals for removing asbestos cement roofs from public buildings in order to reduce the potential for exposure, especially among children.

During the fiscal 2007 2nd-quarter, the company drew down US$13.8 million of its 10-year pre-tax asbestos reserve established in the fiscal 2006-4th quarter to cover indemnity and defense costs. Comparable costs were US$13.4 million during the fiscal 2006-2nd quarter.

Also during the fiscal 2007-2nd quarter, the company's Bondex subsidiary secured a US$15 million pre-tax cash settlement from one of its asbestos liability insurance carriers, which has now been dismissed from the ongoing insurance coverage case.

Litigation against the remaining defendant insurance companies will continue to be pursued, as each has significantly greater liability exposure based on their applicable insurance policies.

Frank C. Sullivan, President and CEO, said, "We are encouraged by this settlement, which was with the defendant carrier whose policies presented the smallest level of exposure to our claims. Beyond the cash value of this settlement, we believe it has strategic importance to the overall case and will enhance our position with respect to the remaining carriers as we press our case forward."

The company's record net sales of US$809.4 million were up 9.5 percent from the US$739.4 million reported in the fiscal 2006-2nd quarter.

Record net income for the quarter grew 185.8 percent, to US$52.9 million from US$18.5 million a year ago, while record diluted earnings per share advanced 180 percent, to US$0.42 from US$0.15 in the year-ago 2nd quarter.

Prior year net income included a pre-tax asbestos reserve charge of US$15 million, while this year's second quarter included a US$15 million pre-tax gain from the settlement of asbestos-related claims against an insurance carrier.

Consolidated earnings before interest and taxes was US$91.4 million, a 143.9 percent improvement over the US$37.5 million reported a year ago.

Headquartered in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. makes home repair products. The company is divided into two units: industrial products (waterproofing, corrosion resistance, floor maintenance, and wall finishing) and consumer products (caulks and sealants, rust-preventative and general-purpose paints, patch and repair products, and hobby paints).

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Records $58.4M Current Liability----------------------------------------------------------------RPM International Inc., for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, recorded US$58,458,000 current asbestos-related liabilities, compared with US$55 million for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2005, according to a company press release dated Jan. 4, 2007.

For the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2006, the company recorded US$58,575,000 current asbestos-related liabilities, compared with US$58,925,000 for the year ended May 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006)

For the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2006, the company recorded US$346,268,000 long-term asbestos-related liabilities, compared with US$362,360,000 for the year ended May 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006)

For the six months ended Nov. 30, 2006, the company's changes in asbestos-related liabilities, net of tax, was US$19,326,000, compared with US$18,744,000 for the six months ended Nov. 30, 2005.

For the six months ended Nov. 30, 2006, the company's reported asbestos income or charge was US$15 million, compared with US$30 million for the six months ended Nov. 30, 2005. For the three months ended Nov. 30, 2006 and Nov. 30, 2005, the company's reported asbestos income or charge was US$15 million.

For the six months ended Nov. 30, 2006, the company's net adjusted asbestos income or charge interest expense was US$24,518,000, compared with US$18,429,000 for the six months ended Nov. 30, 2005.

For the three months ended Nov. 30, 2006, the company's net adjusted asbestos income or charge interest expense was US$11,315,000, compared with US$9,854,000 for the three months ended Nov. 30, 2005.

Headquartered in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. makes home repair products. The company is divided into two units: industrial products (waterproofing, corrosion resistance, floor maintenance, and wall finishing) and consumer products (caulks and sealants, rust-preventative and general-purpose paints, patch and repair products, and hobby paints).

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DNR Issues $1.5T Fine to Mechanical Systems----------------------------------------------------------------The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has issued to Omaha, Nebr.-based Mechanical Systems Inc. a US$1,500 penalty for an air quality violation during renovations at Thomas Jefferson High School on July 12, 2006, The Daily Nonpareil Online reports.

The DNR's enforcement action showed that Robert Barnes of Mechanical Systems agreed to pay the penalty for the incident, involving the removal of a section of pipe with asbestos.

In the consent order's statement, the district had hired W. Boyd Jones Construction Co. Inc. as general contractor for several renovation projects going on at the school. W. Boyd Jones hired Mechanical Systems to renovate the school's HVAC system. Mechanical Systems, in turn, hired Glissman Salvage to remove the building's old pipes.

On July 13, 2006, a representative with the Institute for Environmental Assessment contacted the DNR, in which the representative said, "25 to 30 linear feet of pipe with pipe wrap still intact was cut and carried through the media center and hallway."

Kelli Book, a DNR attorney who handled the case, said regulations involving asbestos require proper notification to the DNR. She added state law requires any removal of asbestos needs to be done while wet.

According to the document, Glissman Salvage employees, who are not licensed asbestos contractors, were under the impression that all the asbestos had been removed from the pipes they cut and moved.

Ms. Book said Mechanical Systems, Glissman Salvage, W. Boyd Jones and the Council Bluffs School District were cited, and more penalties could come down in the future.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OoC Cites D.C. Library for Exposing Workers----------------------------------------------------------------According to citations filed by the Office of Compliance (OoC), the Library of Congress (LoC) failed to initially monitor employees' exposure to airborne asbestos and did not keep work surfaces free from asbestos materials, The Hill reports.

In two citations filed on Dec. 13, 2006, the OoC said that floor tiles in the LoC's Jefferson Building, which were damaged by heavy book carts, had "very high concentrations of chrysotile asbestos."

The citation stated that the LoC violated asbestos-sampling requirements because it failed to initially monitor the air and did so only after actions had been taken. Moreover, the citation said that the LoC has neglected to monitor potential asbestos exposure in the last six years.

One of the citations stated that the LoC should outline a process to initially monitor areas where asbestos is found, establish a system to record exposures and notify the OoC when it fulfills these requirements.

OoC Lead Inspector Stephen Mallinger said, "We want to make sure that [the Library] monitors the conditions that [employees] work in and we want to make sure that the Library trains its employees to be able to recognize hazardous conditions."

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Secondary Exposure Suit Filed v. 104 Firms ---------------------------------------------------------------Dorothy Liss of New York, on Jan. 3, 2007, sued 104 defendants in Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois, in which she alleged exposure to airborne asbestos fibers from her father's clothing, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Liss claimed her father was employed as a carpenter, maintenance worker and stationary engineer at various locations across the country. She further claimed that her father would carry the dust on his clothing with him where it would become airborne.

From 1942 through 1990, Ms. Liss was employed as a cashier and newspaper office worker at various locations throughout Illinois. She also claimed she was exposed to asbestos during non-occupational work projects including home and automotive repairs, maintenance and remodeling.

On Aug. 31, 2006, Ms. Liss was diagnosed with mesothelioma and subsequently became aware that her illness was wrongfully caused, the suit claims.

The complaint alleged that defendants failed to require and advise their employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

As a result of the alleged negligence, Ms. Liss claimed she was exposed to fibers containing asbestos, and developed a disease caused by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured her.

Ms. Liss also claimed that she has sought, but has been unable to obtain full disclosure of relevant documents and information from the defendants leading her to believe the defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos.

Ms. Liss claimed that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to preserve evidence by destroying documents and information she has been prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties.

Nicholas Angelides, Perry Browder, and John Barnerd of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. represent Ms. Liss.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Realtor to Check 10% of Homes for Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------Gloucester City Homes in the U.K. will be conducting an asbestos survey on the dwellings it manages on behalf of Gloucester City Council, The Citizen reports.

Set in January 2007, the study will look at a sample 10 percent of the company's properties. The study would be carried out to determine the extent of any asbestos in tenants' homes before Gloucester City Homes starts a major improvement program.

The improvement program, which is planned to bring all tenants' homes to the Decent Homes Standard by the Government's deadline of 2010, is expected to start later in 2007.

Ashley Green, chief executive of Gloucester City Homes, reassured residents that the checks were routine, and should not cause alarm.

Coun Andrew Gravells, Gloucester City Council's cabinet member for housing and healthy living, welcomed the study.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotland Allows Victims, Kin to Claim Early ----------------------------------------------------------------The Scottish Parliament approved an amendment to the Mesothelioma Damages Bill, which will allow mesothelioma victims and their families to claim full compensation beginning Dec. 20, 2006, rather than have to wait until the Bill becomes law, West Lothian Courier reports.

A number of workers of West Lothian in the United Kingdom are allegedly exposed to asbestos fibers at several locations in the county. These include the Golden Wonder plant in Broxburn and the British Leyland factory in Bathgate.

Deputy Justice Minister Johann Lamont said that the new ruling would be of benefit to local people.

The Mesothelioma Damages Bill will change the law to allow the immediate family of a sufferer to claim damages for non-financial loss, even if the deceased settled their own claim while alive.

This will allow sufferers to proceed with their own claim in the knowledge that their families will not be disadvantaged.

Anti-asbestos campaigner Alex Horne from Armadale welcomed the move ans has urged all those eligible to take advantage of the new regulations.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alert Up for Hazard at Victoria Camp Ruins ---------------------------------------------------------------Asbestos cement sheeting was found at the ruins of the Traralgon College camp at Licola, in Victoria, Australia's Latrobe Valley, ABC Gippsland reports.

Traralgon College was destroyed by fire in December 2006.

The asbestos is expected to delay reconstruction efforts, as licensed removal companies will have to dispose of the toxic building material.

Ron Elliot, Traralgon College's principal, said the asbestos is dangerous if the sheets have become flaky.

Mr. Elliot said, "The asbestos audit that we had done indicated that there was some of that in [there], so we've got to get the appropriately qualified people to go in and assess that situation and then to look at the removal of that asbestos."

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Woman Sues 9 Companies in Ill. Court---------------------------------------------------------------Theresa Gauthier of Connecticut sued nine defendant companies in Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois, in which she alleged exposure to asbestos while working as a bookkeeper, investigator, secretary and postal clerk at various locations, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Gauthier claimed that during the course of her employment, from 1952 to 1995, and during home and automotive repairs she was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers from products she was working with.

Filed on Jan. 4, 2007, the lawsuit stated that Ms. Gauthier was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Jan. 10, 2005.

Ms. Gauthier claimed the defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of people.

Ms. Gauthier alleged that the defendants included asbestos in their products even when substitutes were available and failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around asbestos.

Ms. Gauthier also claimed that the defendants failed to require and advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

The complaint stated that, as a result of the alleged negligence, Ms. Gauthier claimed she was exposed to fibers with asbestos and developed a disease caused by asbestos, which has disabled and disfigured her.

Ms. Gauthier seeks at least US$250,000 in damages for negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence.

Robert Phillips, Nicholas Angelides, John Barnerd, and Perry Browder of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. represent Ms. Gauthier.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Still Faces Product Injury Suits--------------------------------------------------------------The Power Systems Group of Rockwell Automation Inc. still faces personal injury suits from exposure to asbestos used in certain components of its products.

Thousands of claimants are in suits that name the company as a defendant, together with hundreds of other companies.

However, most of the complaints do not identify any of its products or specify which of these claimants were exposed to asbestos from its products.

For those claimants who show that they worked with the company's products, the company said it has meritorious defenses, in part due to the lack of asbestos in its products, the integrity of its products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants.

Based in Milwaukee, Wis., Rockwell Automation Inc. operates through two segments: the control systems, which makes industrial automation products, and the power systems, which offers power transmission products, bushings, clutches, motor brakes, conveyor pulleys, couplings, bearings, and mechanical drives.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nova Partners Pleads No Contest in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------Nova Partners Inc., on Jan. 8, 2007, pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor counts of mishandling asbestos during renovations of the north wing of the Monterey County Courthouse in Salinas, Calif., MontereyHerald.com reports.

Nova Partners entered the pleas on the day that jury selection was to begin in its trial on three felony charges and three misdemeanors alleging that Nova Partners endangered the lives of the public and employees working in the building.

Under the agreement, Nova Partners, which faces a civil lawsuit by a Monterey County judge and two courthouse workers, admitted no fault or liability in the case and the state Attorney General's Office agreed it will not pursue a civil action against Nova Partners.

Nova Partners will pay US$193,394 to cover the costs of investigation. It must also develop new training programs for its employees, enlist new protocols for conducting work on buildings with hazardous materials, and follow all laws regarding handling of those materials, including asbestos.

If Nova Partners meets the terms of the agreement over a 30-month period, it will be allowed to withdraw its pleas and the charges will be dismissed. If it fails to comply, it faces a maximum fine of US$200,000 when it is sentenced on July 13, 2009.

Skanska USA Building Inc., the project's construction manager, was fined US$750,000 in November 2006 after pleading no contest to four misdemeanor charges. Skanska will be given the chance to withdraw the pleas and have the charges dismissed if it meets the terms of a one-year probation.

Nova Partners still manages the courthouse project.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Firm Seeks Out Former Shipyard Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------Former shipyard workers in Cumbria, in the United Kingdom, are being warned that there is a risk they could have contracted potentially fatal asbestos disease, News & Star reports.

MWR Solicitors, which handles asbestos-related claims, held free advice sessions in the county. They noticed an alarming trend of asbestos illnesses.

MWR said a high proportion of those attending had worked at Vickers Shipyard in Barrow, in which the shipyard is now owned by BAE SYSTEMS plc.

The firm said that despite this large workforce, there has been little attention drawn to the large amounts of asbestos used in both its ships and buildings.

It is now known that a small amount can cause diseases like pleural plaques, pleural thickening and in some cases, mesothelioma.

However, the effects of asbestos are not usually seen until at least 10 years after exposure, and in some cases it can be up to 50 years.

Sharon Rigby, who has been running the clinics, wants former shipbuilders to come forward. She said, "It can take between 10 and 50 years for a person to show an asbestos-related condition after exposure and it is important that those who have worked at Vickers come forward as they may have been affected by asbestos."

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCDHEC Wants Proper Disposal of Asbestos -------------------------------------------------------------South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control investigates the disappearance of asbestos from the old log cabin in Swansea, S.C., TheState.com reports.

The DHEC said it needed to know where the asbestos went because a licensed contractor must dispose of the material under strict federal guidelines.

In November 2005, Swansea officials found out the log cabin, built in the 1930s as a Works Progress Administration project, had asbestos and they would have to pay a contractor to remove and dispose of it. According to town officials, it would have cost about US$3,000.

Town officials notified DHEC on Jan. 9, 2006. With the asbestos gone, they would demolish the cabin. The DHEC issued permits to demolish the cabin on Jan. 12, 2007.

DHEC's investigation could lead to thousands of dollars in fines for Swansea, at a time when the town of about 500 is about US$500,000 in debt.

Aside from the US$8,000 penalty, Mr. Godbout would pay an additional US$16,135 suspended for two years. Topia Arts LLC, Topia Inn's developers, will pay US$4,000, with an additional US$6,000 suspended for two years.

The fine is a response to a complaint received in February 2005 that workers had stripped shingles from the former Pleasant Street Lodge, which is being redeveloped as the Topia Inn, and let them scatter on the sidewalk and the street.

Inspectors from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection confirmed the problem shortly thereafter.

According to DEP spokeswoman Eva Tor, the owners cooperated in cleaning up the problem. Since some of the material was frozen in ice and snow, the DEP decided it would be more of a problem to dig it up, and the cleanup was not completed until April 2006.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Seek Quick Review in Grace Suit --------------------------------------------------------------The Zonolite Attic Insulation Property Damage Claimants assert that Judge Judith Fitzgerald's Memorandum of Opinion and Order should be reviewed immediately because it may seriously affect the evaluation of the ZAI Claims at a critical juncture of W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors' bankruptcy cases and impede their reorganization if appeal is delayed.

William D. Sullivan, Esq., in Wilmington, Del., points out that the Memorandum of Opinion and Order depart from 20 years of asbestos property damage precedent in ruling that an asbestos property contamination claim requires elements of proof of personal injury, like epidemiological evidence of asbestos disease from Zonolite Attic Insulation in homes, a doubling dose of exposure, or asbestos air levels exceeding the occupational time-weighted averages of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

No evidences have been required by numerous state and federal courts sitting in diversity that have tried many asbestos property damage cases in the last two decades, Mr. Sullivan says.

Rather those courts recognize that the issue in an asbestos property damage case is whether the property has been contaminated by asbestos, as typically shown by scientific testing that the asbestos material can release fibers and that the release fibers have contaminated some portion of the building.

The ZAI Claimants are a significant aspect of the Debtors' bankruptcy, Mr. Sullivan avers. To the extent the Memorandum of Opinion and Order may be read to undermine the viability of some aspects of the ZAI Claimants, Mr. Sullivan contends that it may impede any progress toward achieving consensual resolution among the Debtors' key constituencies.

As noted in the open court, the ZAI Claimants, other PD Claimants and the PI Claimants have reached an agreement on an allocation of the available funds in the Debtors' reorganization. Mr. Sullivan says these asbestos constituencies are presently seeking to have the Debtors' exclusivity period terminated.

Mr. Sullivan adds that the Memorandum of Opinion and Order contain findings that rely on a selective reading of the record and misinterpret the record or ignore contrary evidence, all in violation of the established summary judgment standard.

Thus, the ZAI Claimants ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to grant them leave to appeal the Memorandum of Opinion and Order.

The Debtors ask the Court to extend the time for them to respond to ZAI Claimants' Motion for Leave to Appeal.

Laura Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub, LLP, in Wilmington, Del., asserts that without the extension, the Debtors would be prejudiced because they would be required to respond to the Interlocutory Appeal Motion within a brief period of time.

Ms. Jones maintains that the brief extension will not unduly delay the disposition of the Interlocutory Appeal Motion.

The ZAI Claimants have advised the Debtors that they do not oppose to an extension, according to Ms. Jones.

The ZAI Claimants have asked that the status conference with respect to the remainder of the motions for summary judgment be delayed until late February 2007.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ZAI Claimants to Appeal No-Risk Ruling -----------------------------------------------------------The ZAI Claimants notify the Bankruptcy Court that they will appeal to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Judge Judith Fitzgerald's order finding that Zonolite Attic Insulation produced by W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors poses no unreasonable risk if left undisturbed.

The ZAI Claimants want the District Court to determine if the Bankruptcy Court erred:

-- In granting summary judgment when there were conflicting issues of material facts and inferences to be drawn from those material facts, and whether the Bankruptcy Court made factual findings as to disputed issues by improperly favoring evidence supporting the Debtors' position;

-- By failing to apply the substantive state laws governing the product liability claims of the ZAI Claimants;

-- By failing to apply the substantive state laws governing the consumer protection claims of the ZAI Claimants;

-- By superimposing an unprecedented, federal "unreasonably dangerous" test on all of the ZAI Claimants' legal claims;

-- By imposing "risk of disease" as a prerequisite to cognizable harm compensable under applicable consumer protection statutes;

-- By imposing "risk of disease" as a prerequisite to cognizable tort-based property damage claims;

-- By holding that no facts permit the conclusion that ZAI is "unreasonably dangerous;"

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. RPM Int'l. Units Rise to 11,021----------------------------------------------------------------RPM International Inc.'s subsidiaries, as of Nov. 30, 2006, had a total of 11,021 active asbestos-related cases, compared with a total of 9,501 cases as of Nov. 30, 2005, according to the company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended Nov. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of Aug. 31, 2006, company subsidiaries had a total of 10,934 active asbestos-related cases, compared with a total of 9,093 cases as of Aug. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006)

For the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, the subsidiaries secured dismissals and settlements of 324 claims and made total payments of US$13.8 million, which included defense costs of US$6.6 million paid during the current quarter.

For the comparable period ended Nov. 30, 2005, dismissals and settlements covered 234 claims and total payments were US$13.4 million, which included defense costs of US$5.2 million paid during the quarter.

Certain Company subsidiaries, mainly Bondex International Inc., face asbestos-related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state courts with most of current claims pending in five states: Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Texas and Florida.

Claim filings in Mississippi, Ohio, Texas, Florida and Illinois at the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, comprise about 75 percent of the total aggregate claims filed against Bondex.

At the end of fiscal 2006, the company increased its reserve for asbestos claims by about US$335 million, while paying out US$12.9 million for dismissals or settlements resulting in its reserve moving from US$99.2 million at Feb. 28, 2006 to US$421.3 million at May 31, 2006.

As of Nov. 30, 2006, total reserves were about US$391.1 million.

For the six months ended Nov. 30, 2006, current and long-term asbestos liability movement was US$391,084,000, compared with US$421,285,000 for the year ended May 31, 2006 and US$101,172,000 for the year ended May 31, 2005.

Headquartered in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. makes home repair products. The company is divided into two units: industrial products (waterproofing, corrosion resistance, floor maintenance, and wall finishing) and consumer products (caulks and sealants, rust-preventative and general-purpose paints, patch and repair products, and hobby paints).

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Units Await '07 Trial for Insurers Suit----------------------------------------------------------------RPM International Inc.'s subsidiaries await a trial in 2007 calendar year for asbestos-related coverage litigation filed against various third-party insurers, according to the company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended Nov. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In July 2003, certain company subsidiaries filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, breach of contract and bad faith against the third-party insurers, challenging their assertion that their policies covering asbestos-related claims have been exhausted.

The litigation involves insurance coverage for claims arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos products made by the previous owner of the Bondex tradename before March 1, 1966.

On March 1, 1966, Republic Powdered Metals Inc., as it was known then, bought the assets and assumed the liabilities of the previous owner of the Bondex tradename.

That previous owner subsequently dissolved and was never a subsidiary of Republic Powdered Metals, Bondex, RPM Inc. or the company.

Because of the earlier assumption of liabilities, however, Bondex has historically and must continue to respond to suits alleging exposure to these asbestos products.

The company discovered that the defendant insurance companies in the coverage litigation had wrongfully used cases alleging exposure to these pre-1966 products to erode their aggregate limits. This conduct, known by the insurance industry based on discovery conducted to date, was in breach of the insurers' policy language.

Two of the defendant insurers have filed counterclaims seeking to recoup certain monies should the plaintiffs prevail on their claims. The parties have substantially completed all fact discovery and are nearing completion of the expert discovery phase of the case.

The parties will next file dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment, and related briefs.

During the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, Bondex reached a US$15 million cash settlement with one of the defendant insurers. The settling defendant has been dismissed from the case.

Headquartered in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. makes home repair products. The company is divided into two units: industrial products (waterproofing, corrosion resistance, floor maintenance, and wall finishing) and consumer products (caulks and sealants, rust-preventative and general-purpose paints, patch and repair products, and hobby paints).

The Appeals Court has ruled that each claimant's injurious exposure to asbestos products constitutes a separate "occurrence" under a primary commercial general liability policy.

Court records showed that thousands of plaintiffs have sued Kaiser alleging product liability-related injuries from three decades of making asbestos-containing materials.

After making more than US$50 million in indemnity payments, Truck sought a declaratory judgment that its policy limits were exhausted. It also sought summary adjudication, arguing that Kaiser's decision to manufacture and distribute asbestos products arose from of a single annual occurrence.

The Trial Court agreed, which led Kaiser's excess insurers to appeal.

The excess insurers argued that the Trial Court wrongly concluded that Truck's policy limits were exhausted because the relevant occurrence was "injurious exposure to asbestos," and that each injury resulted from a separate occurrence.

However, the Appeals Court sided with the excess insurers on the determination of a single occurrence and vacated the summary judgment.

The Appeals court said it could not determine whether Truck's policies had been exhausted.

Sinn Fein Councilor Liam Johnston has come forward to criticize the fly tippers who discarded the rubbish close to the housing estate.

Councilor Johnston received the complaints about the asbestos sheets that he found left lying on the Old Course Road, close to the RGU football pitches.

Councilor Johnston said, "Those responsible may think they are clever dodging the financial cost involved in the disposal of asbestos. But they have dumped this material close to a residential area, where young children are known to play."

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Factory Building Held Up Over Detection ---------------------------------------------------------------A bid to build a GBP2.5 million factory in Barrow-in-Furness in Northwest England has stalled after asbestos was found in the ground, North-West Evening Mail reports.

To be built for undersea technology firm Diamould Ltd., the factory could create as many as 200 more skilled jobs in the next few years.

However, the plan has been stopped by the asbestos find at the proposed 2.5-acre site on the old shipyard West Shop, in Bridge Road near Jubilee Bridge.

Project developers Priority Sites, based in Leeds, claim the delay in signing a deal for the land with Barrow Borough Council, caused by the asbestos find, means they will receive less grant aid because of rule changes between 2006 and 2007.

Diamould is now owned by U.S. oilfield services multinational Schlumberger. It has created more than 100 skilled jobs since it was set up four years ago.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Building to be Demolished for Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------The building that housed the first submarine sandwich shop in Newhall, Calif., in Santa Clarita Valley, would be demolished due to the presence of asbestos and lead-based paint, The Signal reports.

Assistant city engineer Chris Price said the previous home of the Moore's Submarine Sandwiches at 24158 San Fernando Road in downtown Newhall is set to be demolished in March 2007.

Mr. Price said it is cheaper to demolish and build a new building than to convert the existing one for another use.

The City bought Moore's, which was built in 1959, less than six months before the City's redevelopment agency put it in its name in April 2006. The City's purchase of Moore's was part of its plan to invigorate downtown Newhall.

Mariann Moore, the former owner of Moore's Submarine Sandwiches, closed the restaurant in August 2005 for undisclosed reasons after nearly 33 years in business.

Mrs. Moore's father-in-law, A.J. Moore, started the business in 1972 and. In the 1990s, Mr. Moore's son Eugene took over the business.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Splits Delmarva Ruling in Hudson Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, granted in part and denied in part Delmarva Power & Light Co.'s motion for summary judgment in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Harry Hudson.

Mr. Hudson made and installed machine parts as an employee of WSMW Industries Inc. from 1976 to 2001. His job required him "frequently [to] cut and install asbestos-containing sheet gasket and rope packing material" as well as work near other contractors working with asbestos containing insulation. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma after he left WSMW.

Mr. Hudson worked for WSMW at many different sites owned by many different entities. At issue in this motion are two Delmarva sites: Edgemoor, Del. and Delaware City, Del. He worked at the Edgemoor site "at least 50, 75 times" and the Delaware City site "a good hundred times."

The Court found that Delmarva did not exercise the requisite degree of control over Mr. Hudson's work at its Edgemoor facility to subject Delmarva to landowner liability. Delmarva is entitled to summary judgment on that basis.

However, summary judgment is not appropriate with respect to Demlarva's potential liability for Mr. Hudson's asbestos exposure at the Delaware City plant because the record has not been developed to facilitate an analysis of the control issue as it related to Mr. Hudson's work there.

HANSEN NATURAL: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------The Brower Piven announces that a class action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded common stock of Hansen Natural Corp. between Nov. 12, 2001 and Nov. 9, 2006. Brower Piven is one of the firms that have filed this lawsuit within the past 60 days.

The complaint alleges that Hansen and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities law. It alleges that:

-- defendants engaged in the backdating of stock option grants for certain key executives of the company;

-- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition; and

-- that as a result of the foregoing, defendants engaged in improper accounting practices.

The complaint alleges that, as a result of a series of disclosures from Oct. 31, 2006 to Nov. 9, 2006 regarding the company's stock option backdating practices, the company's stock price fell approximately 22%, costing its shareholders approximately $500 million in market capitalization.

Interested parties have until Jan. 29, 2007 to ask the court to for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.